Staff MemberModerator

Ok, A couple of months I had some one email me asking if I had data on US Navy losses by aircraft type but I lost your email. Sifting through the pdf files that I have that Ive found around the net I found this one in my back up files.

Hopefully the person who emailed me will see this. If not then hopefully some one will enjoy it.

Thanks Micdrow, for posting the data on Navy and Marine sorties, etc. It was eye opening and shows why the Navy recommended that the Corsair replace the Hellcat on Carriers as soon as possible. The data that jumped out at me was the Corsair's operational losses were not as high as the Hellcat's. Also the Corsair, since the majority of it's missions were apparently air to ground, was a more survivable ac in that role.

Micdrow, yes those stats were eye opening. I have always believed that the Corsair was the best fighter bomber of the war but I also thought that it probably did not make as much of a overall contribution to the second world war as the Hellcat. Those stats show that the Corsair flew almost the same number of action sorties as the Hellcat but dropped around twice the tonnage of bombs and had substanstially fewer losses from AAA. Also, the ratios of bombers versus fighters shot down by the Hellcat and Corsair is significant. The Hellcat shot down a little more than twice as many fighters as bombers while the Corsair downed almost 4 times as many fighters as bombers which reflects it's role as an escort fighter early in the war rather than fleet defense. The ratios of enemy ac shot down to Hellcat and Corsair losses to enemy ac now don't look as favorable to the Hellcat as they once did. As I said in the earlier post it is obvious why the Navy chose the Corsair over the Hellcat once the Corsair's deck landing deficencies were cured.